5 ms·

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. It's not low-hanging fruit. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.o

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. It's not low-hanging fruit. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

Pxtl 6y ago
I'm not arguing the point. We are far more able to tackle ground-vehicle emissions, home heating, and electrical generation. But eventually air travel's time will come, and HSR is the only alternative that's on the table.
- mlinksva 6y ago
  Less travel is also on the table. We should do all of the above. A hefty carbon tax is the holistic instrument, but I'll take any/all paths.
- philwelch 6y ago
  There are also carbon capture and sequestration and closed-loop hydrocarbon fuel production using carbon-neutral energy sources. It’s completely false, unnecessary, and counterproductive to spread FUD about climate change requiring substantial reductions in quality of life. People are smart and resourceful enough to solve these problems.
ancientworldnow 6y ago
The share of warming is higher than the pure emissions because of the aerosol effects and resulting heat trapping. Some estimates are twice as much.
adrianmonk 6y ago
And trains can't replace transoceanic flights. I don't know what percentage, but not all of that 2.5% can be eliminated with trains.
- ahelwer 6y ago
  A society that takes climate change seriously will replace international air travel with passenger ships featuring high-speed satellite internet and spacious work areas. Little-known fact, ocean travel is 3x more energy-efficient than even rail.
  - gwbrooks 6y ago
    There's no society on earth taking climate change as seriously as warranted if the worst projections are to be believed. And there's no precedent for the level of global cooperation -- which would have to transcend nation-level political realities -- required for meaningful change. I'm long on humanity. But not because I think we're all going to wake up and fix the climate in a coordinated manner.
  - jandrewrogers 6y ago
    People value their time. There is a reason we replaced modes of travel that require days or weeks of travel time with modes of travel that only require hours. Society and culture has been heavily optimized around the fact that it doesn't take weeks to get to where you are trying to go. The world is global and distances are long. Few people want to be stuck on a passenger ship for weeks at a time, their objective is not to be sitting on a ship. It would make international travel completely infeasible for all but a minority. No one would be able to do simple things like visit family if it required a month or more of round-trip transit time.
    - ahelwer 6y ago
      I'm not an idiot, I know why people travel by jet aircraft. These luxuries are irrelevant in the face of climate change. Society has been organized around jet travel. It can be reorganized around the reality of international travel requiring large time investment.
      - squidlogic 6y ago
        Society is organized around individuals and groups working in mutual self interest. If you go against this principle to find your solution you risk backlash to your (perceived or real) tyranny.
TheCoelacanth 6y ago
All sources of CO2 emissions look small when broken down to that level of granularity.
- squidlogic 6y ago
  From the source cited, here is a breakdown per industry: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Energy usage for industry is 24% Road travel is 11% It seems aviation’s 2% is not the low hanging fruit.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    But passenger road traffic is only 7%. The rest is freight which requires a completely different solution. There is no low hanging fruit. We need to address every sector. No individual solution is going to cut more than a few percent of total carbon emissions.
    - iancmceachern 6y ago
      24% industrial use is in my mind. A buddy of mine worked for a startup a few years ago that promised to go into large plants and do some trickery with the harmonic losses with the very large AC motors in a lot of the big equipment. Apparently there is a lot of losses in such things. They would install equipment to improve the situation in exchange for a portion of the energy savings over time, which was considerable.
      - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
        Except that also breaks down into 7% iron/steel, 3.6% chemical and oil, 1% food and tobacco and many other small categories. Is the same solution that cuts down on carbon emissions in making steel going to cut emissions when making fertilizer?
        iancmceachern 6y ago
SECProto 6y ago
> Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. It's not low-hanging fruit. Aviation accounts for 9% [1] of US transportation co2 emissions (and as they're emitted at high altitude, impact is likely more like 13-14%) [1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. It's not low-hanging fruit. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation

Pxtl 6y ago

I'm not arguing the point. We are far more able to tackle ground-vehicle emissions, home heating, and electrical generation. But eventually air travel's time will come, and HSR is the only alternative that's on the table.

mlinksva 6y ago
Less travel is also on the table. We should do all of the above. A hefty carbon tax is the holistic instrument, but I'll take any/all paths.
philwelch 6y ago
There are also carbon capture and sequestration and closed-loop hydrocarbon fuel production using carbon-neutral energy sources. It’s completely false, unnecessary, and counterproductive to spread FUD about climate change requiring substantial reductions in quality of life. People are smart and resourceful enough to solve these problems.

ancientworldnow 6y ago

The share of warming is higher than the pure emissions because of the aerosol effects and resulting heat trapping. Some estimates are twice as much.

adrianmonk 6y ago

And trains can't replace transoceanic flights. I don't know what percentage, but not all of that 2.5% can be eliminated with trains.

ahelwer 6y ago
A society that takes climate change seriously will replace international air travel with passenger ships featuring high-speed satellite internet and spacious work areas. Little-known fact, ocean travel is 3x more energy-efficient than even rail.
- gwbrooks 6y ago
  There's no society on earth taking climate change as seriously as warranted if the worst projections are to be believed. And there's no precedent for the level of global cooperation -- which would have to transcend nation-level political realities -- required for meaningful change. I'm long on humanity. But not because I think we're all going to wake up and fix the climate in a coordinated manner.
- jandrewrogers 6y ago
  People value their time. There is a reason we replaced modes of travel that require days or weeks of travel time with modes of travel that only require hours. Society and culture has been heavily optimized around the fact that it doesn't take weeks to get to where you are trying to go. The world is global and distances are long. Few people want to be stuck on a passenger ship for weeks at a time, their objective is not to be sitting on a ship. It would make international travel completely infeasible for all but a minority. No one would be able to do simple things like visit family if it required a month or more of round-trip transit time.
  - ahelwer 6y ago
    I'm not an idiot, I know why people travel by jet aircraft. These luxuries are irrelevant in the face of climate change. Society has been organized around jet travel. It can be reorganized around the reality of international travel requiring large time investment.
    - squidlogic 6y ago
      Society is organized around individuals and groups working in mutual self interest. If you go against this principle to find your solution you risk backlash to your (perceived or real) tyranny.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

All sources of CO2 emissions look small when broken down to that level of granularity.

squidlogic 6y ago
From the source cited, here is a breakdown per industry: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector Energy usage for industry is 24% Road travel is 11% It seems aviation’s 2% is not the low hanging fruit.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  But passenger road traffic is only 7%. The rest is freight which requires a completely different solution. There is no low hanging fruit. We need to address every sector. No individual solution is going to cut more than a few percent of total carbon emissions.
  - iancmceachern 6y ago
    24% industrial use is in my mind. A buddy of mine worked for a startup a few years ago that promised to go into large plants and do some trickery with the harmonic losses with the very large AC motors in a lot of the big equipment. Apparently there is a lot of losses in such things. They would install equipment to improve the situation in exchange for a portion of the energy savings over time, which was considerable.
    - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
      Except that also breaks down into 7% iron/steel, 3.6% chemical and oil, 1% food and tobacco and many other small categories. Is the same solution that cuts down on carbon emissions in making steel going to cut emissions when making fertilizer?
      - iancmceachern 6y ago

SECProto 6y ago

> Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. It's not low-hanging fruit. Aviation accounts for 9% [1] of US transportation co2 emissions (and as they're emitted at high altitude, impact is likely more like 13-14%) [1] https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-...